2026-06-29 - LD Munich - Nokia v. ASUS - UPC-CFI-0000384/2026

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0000384/2026
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
Nokia Technologies Oy v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS Europe B.V., ASUS France S.A.R.L., ASUSTeK Italy srl, ASUS Nordic AB

Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division allowed the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action and the two counterclaims for revocation brought against it, holding that R.

2026-06-29 - LD Munich - Nokia v. ASUS - UPC-CFI-0000384/2026
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC-CFI-0000384/2026 (Sie lesen diesen hier) Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_289/2025
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2026-06-29
🔢UPC-CFI-0000384/2026
Parteien & Vertreter
UPC-CFI-0000384/2026
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Nokia Technologies Oy
Christian HARMSEN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
ASUS Computer GmbH
ASUS Europe B.V.
ASUS France S.A.R.L.
ASUSTeK Italy srl
ASUS Nordic AB
Alexander WIESE
UPC_CFI_289/2025
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Nokia Technologies Oy
Christian HARMSEN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
ASUSTeK Computer Inc.
ASUS Computer GmbH
ASUS Europe B.V.
ASUS France S.A.R.L.
ASUSTeK Italy srl
ASUS Nordic AB
Alexander WIESE
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Munich Local Division allowed the mutual withdrawal of an infringement action and the two counterclaims for revocation brought against it, holding that R. 265.1 RoP applies to counterclaims exactly as it does to claims and that neither side had asserted, nor was there any sign of, a legitimate interest in a decision on the merits. On costs it confirmed that R. 265.2(c) RoP, although its wording points only to the cost-fixing rules of R. 150 et seq. RoP, also obliges the Court to take a costs-basis decision within Art. 69 UPCA, of its own motion and without any application; a party agreement is to be respected, and a statement that no cost decision is sought is regularly to be read as meaning that no reimbursement takes place and each party bears its own costs. On the court fees the panel applied R. 370.9(b) RoP in the version in force since 1 January 2026, because what fixes the applicable version is the date the withdrawal application is filed — a point the Court of Appeal has settled in four decisions — and it expressly declined to follow the contrary view of the Mannheim Local Division, seeing no need to grant leave to appeal. Half of the court fees paid was ordered repaid to each of the three fee-paying groups. The counterclaims were valued at the value of the infringement action plus 50%, following the Administrative Committee's fee Guidelines.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren